[whatwg] X-UA-Compatible, X-* headers, validators, etc.
julian.reschke at gmx.de
Mon Oct 12 00:24:37 PDT 2009
Henri Sivonen wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2009, at 08:20, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>> I think the HTML5 requirement should be changed to allow any header in
>> the Permanent Message Header Field Registry. Effectively, this would
>> require either an RFC or an Open Standard. This seems just as good for
>> HTML5's purposes as requiring an RFC.
> I disagree unless we really want to enable http-equiv as a way of
> specifying browser-only HTTP header equivalents that intermediaries ignore.
I think that's an orthogonal discussion. Requiring "RFC" when the IETF
requires something different appears to be a bug.
> As for X-UA-Compatible specifically, when Microsoft did it, it was
> decried as a bad thing. Why does it become a good thing when Google does
More information about the whatwg